# C_2016068EN.01000902.xml

| 22.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 68/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 68/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen — Belgium) — Imtech Marine Belgium NV v Radio Hellenic SA

(Case C-300/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 - European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Conditions for certification - Rights of the debtor - Review of the judgment))

(2016/C 068/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hof van beroep te Antwerpen

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Imtech Marine Belgium NV

Applicant:

Defendant: Radio Hellenic SA

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, read in the light of Article 288 TFEU, must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to establish in their national law a review procedure such as that referred to in Article 19 of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, read in the light of Article 288 TFEU, must be interpreted as not requiring Member States to establish in their national law a review procedure such as that referred to in Article 19 of that regulation.

| 2. | Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to certify a judgment delivered in absentia as a European Enforcement Order, the court ruling on such an application must satisfy itself that its national law effectively and without exception allows for a full review, in law and in fact, of such a judgment in the two situations referred to in that provision and that it allows the periods for challenging a judgment on an uncontested claim to be extended, not only in the event of force majeure, but also where other extraordinary circumstances beyond the debtor’s control prevented him from contesting the claim in question. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to certify a judgment delivered in absentia as a European Enforcement Order, the court ruling on such an application must satisfy itself that its national law effectively and without exception allows for a full review, in law and in fact, of such a judgment in the two situations referred to in that provision and that it allows the periods for challenging a judgment on an uncontested claim to be extended, not only in the event of force majeure, but also where other extraordinary circumstances beyond the debtor’s control prevented him from contesting the claim in question.

| 3. | Article 6 of Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the certification of a judgment as a European Enforcement Order, which may be applied for at any time, can be carried out only by a judge. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 6 of Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the certification of a judgment as a European Enforcement Order, which may be applied for at any time, can be carried out only by a judge.

---

(1)  OJ C 303, 8.9.2014.

1

---